|
|
Brill v. Peckham Motor Truck Co., 189 U.S. 57 (1903)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Brill v. Peckham Motor Truck Co., 189 U.S. 57 (1903)
Brill v. Peckham Motor Truck and Wheel Company No. 181 Argued March 2-3, 1903 Decided April 6, 1903 189 U.S. 57
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Where, in a patent case, a preliminary injunction has been granted by a circuit court on the strength of a previous adjudication by the same court over the same patent, the case involving questions of fact in respect of anticipation and infringement, and not being ripe for final hearing, it is error for the circuit court of appeals, on an appeal from the interlocutory order, to direct a dismissal of the bill. Mast Foos Company v. Stover Manufacturing Company, 177 U.S. 485, applied.
This was a bill in equity filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York by John A. Brill and the J. G. Brill Company against the Peckham Motor Truck & Wheel Company and others, praying for injunction and accounting for infringement of letters patent No. 478,218, for an improvement in car trucks, issued July 5, 1892.
The J. G. Brill Company was a manufacturer of street cars and trucks at Philadelphia, and the Peckham Motor Truck & Wheel Company was a manufacturer of trucks at Kingston, New York.
The bill was filed October 15, 1900, and a motion for preliminary injunction on behalf of complainants on claims 1 and 2 of the patent in suit was heard by Judge Lacombe on October 26, 1900, on affidavits previously served by complainants, including the record of an adjudication in the circuit court in the case of Brill v. Third Avenue Railroad Company, in which the opinion of Judge Shipman was filed July 9, 1900. 103 F. 289.
Defendants filed affidavits at the hearing, which had been sworn to October 25 and 26, and which complainants had apparently had no opportunity to inspect before the argument. These affidavits set up two patents (Manier, of August 27, 1889, No. 409,993, and Peckham, of January 21, 1890, No. 419,876), which had also been before Judge Shipman in the prior case, and defendants contended, in view of these two patents, that the two claims in controversy must be limited in their scope, and that there had been no infringement of the claims as thus limited. Judge Lacombe held that, as there was no prior patent before him which had not been before Judge Shipman, and as the combination which Judge Shipman described as the gist of the invention was undoubtedly in defendants’ structures, complainants were entitled to a restraining order under "well settled rules of practice." 105 F. 626. The preliminary injunction was therefore granted. From this interlocutory order, defendants took an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and on a hearing there, the order granting the preliminary injunction was reversed, and the cause remanded to the circuit court with instructions to dismiss the bill with costs. 108 F. 267. A petition was filed for a rehearing, and denied. 49 C.C.A. 87, 110 F. 377. This writ of certiorari was then granted. 183 U.S. 698.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Brill v. Peckham Motor Truck Co., 189 U.S. 57 (1903) in 189 U.S. 57 189 U.S. 58. Original Sources, accessed November 25, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=TRMPUEFSGJD8U56.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Brill v. Peckham Motor Truck Co., 189 U.S. 57 (1903), in 189 U.S. 57, page 189 U.S. 58. Original Sources. 25 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=TRMPUEFSGJD8U56.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Brill v. Peckham Motor Truck Co., 189 U.S. 57 (1903). cited in 1903, 189 U.S. 57, pp.189 U.S. 58. Original Sources, retrieved 25 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=TRMPUEFSGJD8U56.
|